Blog Stats

Flag Counter since 20091011

Hit Count Since 20110428

Archive for February, 2012

Those who have an interest in prehistory will want to note, if they have not already, that the Y chromosome of the Tyrolean Iceman is now being reported, and while having been hinted at recently, it involved something of a surprise initially.

It appears that the portion of the continental landmass that we know as Europe has had a relatively complex post-glacial population history. Trying to reconstruct what the “original” Europeans “looked like“, or exactly where they came from at the point wherein these particular populations may be said to have had anything resembling a distinctive cultural kit, is an ongoing project.

What seems to be the case however is that there are a multitude of distinct genetic lineages within the classification “European”, and that these distinctions run deep into history.

Otzi himself is an example of this complex history. And indeed his own story, a long time in unfolding since the discovery of his mummified corpse, has changed substantially since it was first reported that he was probably a wayfarer who had died of hypothermia as a result of being caught in an unpredictable change of weather.

He was according to recent reports killed in fact by an arrow which severed a subclavian artery, some days, it appears, after he had been in a fight which had left him with serious hand wounds, and the blood of four other individuals on his clothing and weapons.

Penn Museum lecture

Advertisements

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

As I’ve mentioned before, I regularly check my site’s internals. I am particularly interested in referencing sites as to how people find TBD. I found a very interesting site today, which had a route to TBD somehow. Study Bass Guitar Online. After reading the article, I have to say that the site is either ESL/translated, or wholly trollish. But I suspect it’s ESL/translated.

I have long had an interest in learning how to play the bass guitar, much moreso than rhythm (my second choice) or lead (my third choice) because I love the drive the bass guitar provides. Rhythm guitar is incapable of providing that drive, and lead guitar is wholly outside the drive and wholly within the fluffery of the song.

But having looked at the article in question, I still have no idea how someone came here from there. Nor do I have any idea what they’re saying.

Bradley Manning, U.S. soldier accused of leaking material to WikiLeaks, among those nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

231 nominations have been submitted for this year’s award

Monday, February 27, 2012, 9:03 AM

OSLO, Norway — A spokesman for the Nobel Peace Prize jury says 231 nominations have been submitted for this year’s award, with publicly disclosed candidates including a former Ukrainian prime minister and the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified material to WikiLeaks.

Norwegian Nobel Committee secretary Geir Lundestad told the AP on Monday that “The list of nominees is a mixture of repeated nominations and some new names.”

PFC Manning does not face the death penalty, so there’s no claim that the nomination was made to save his life, as was the case with Mr Williams. Rather, this was a clearly political attempt to glorify someone who stole and then had published American classified information, without even having comprehensive knowledge of what he was divulging. PFC Manning simply dumped hundreds of thousands of documents, which could have contained information which led directly to the deaths of Americans for all he knew, into the lap of Julian Assange, an accused rapist, who published much of them.¹

That there are quack nominations is unsurprising. Heck, there have been Nobel Peace Prize winners whose awards call into question the intelligence and sincerity of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee: Yassir Arafat,, in 1994, a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands; Le Duc Tho, in 1973, who at least had the decency to decline; Al Gore, in 2007, for his efforts to scam the world on global warming; Jimmy Carter, in 2002, for his persistent criticism of President George W Bush; and Barack Obama, in 2009, for not being George W Bush. Former President Bush, who led the liberation of fifty million people from Ba’ath Party and Taliban tyranny, will never be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The only real surprise is that we haven’t heard of a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Mumia abu-Jamal Wesley Cook.

______________________________________
¹ – Though PFC Manning has not yet been convicted, he does not deny that he took this action. His defense, such as it is, is that he was a troubled individual who should never have been granted access to classified information in the first place, and that the Army failed to remove him from his sensitive post when it was obvious that such should have been done.

As of Thursday, 23 November 2012, the last day for which figures are available, the national debt stood at $15,435,694,556,033.29, and that’s only $199,422,676,240.51 higher than it was on 20 January 2012, the beginning of the third year of Mr Obama’s term.

And the national debt is still $290,282,803,488.23 lower than the amount it would have to be to match the amount added under President Bush.

Assuming that the additions to the national debt continue at the same rate as they have since the beginning of President Obama’s third year in office, he will have tied President Bush’s national debt addition — which took him eight years to accomplish, it should be noted — on 13 April 2012. I was snarkily hoping he’d tie the record on April 15th, income tax day, but 15 April 2012 falls on a Sunday this year, and income taxes are now due on April 16th.

Still, if the debt will manage to accumulate just slightly less rapidly, maybe President Obama can hit that number on the 16th! That should give him a goal for which to strive.

Share this:

Like this:

So I came home from work this morning and checked my blog’s internal Site Stats, as I usually do. But what I found was abnormal. Prior to 10am, Truth Before Dishonor had already gotten over 270 views! A quick look at the numbers showed me where those views came from and what they were (mainly) viewing. It was my article I wrote May 10, 2011, entitled The Dixiecrat Myth, which can be found prominently linked in my side bar. And the source of those hits? Twitter and FaceBook. And a quick check of Twitter to see who caused those hits (because I’m not skilled enough to do any in-depth searching of that sort) showed links from Adam Baldwin (who sent the link to some well-known people), Dan Riehl, and others.

Like this:

Dana Pico and I are both Christian Conservatives. Dana Pico is a Catholic adherent, while I am … not. But we both believe in Tough Love.

There is a reason why Liberals and “victims” of Tough Love despise Tough Love. And the reason is purely emotional and purely devoid of logic. Many “victims” of Tough Love, after they grow up and become responsible, become adherents of Tough Love. And there is a very clear reason: it works.

As I stated, Dana Pico is a Catholic adherent and I’m not. That difference is key from the starting gate.

While Catholics, like Dana Pico, are wholly against Capital Punishment, and Tough Love adherent Catholics like Dana Pico are fully in favor of Life without Parole, I am dead-set against Life sentences. If anyone has done something so heinous as to deserve to spend the rest of his life behind bars, that person has done something so heinous as to have his life legally truncated. Period. And the philosophical argument I’m giving has no room for the legalistic expense of arguing such a case. If my position were codified in any manner, much of that expense would evaporate into the oblivion to which it belongs.

I’m also against giving someone years or months or whatever behind bars for theft, burglary, possession of stolen property, burglary tools, etc, which all fall under the category of Theft. But I am not for giving them a free pass, either. Nor am I for accepting “extenuating circumstances” which are always a weak sympathy ploy which should be rejected out of hand.

Death Sentence:
Murder, rape, kidnapping

This would include terrorism, attempted murder (and robbery by gunpoint is attempted murder in my book), attempted rape, attempted kidnapping, but would exclude the accidental deaths called vehicular homicide where drugs and alcohol are not involved, but a lack of control (usually shown by a lack of experience behind the wheel) is the contributing factor.

Time behind bars:
Any sentence that doesn’t require Death, that cannot be financially paid, until such a time as the financial pay-off is met

This would include everything else. Steal a 1,400 dollar TV and pay the victim 5,600 dollars in return. Period. End of story. Whatever you steal, you pay the victim four times its purchase price. If your wife and kids starve because you lose that money, that’s on you, and not on anyone else. (It’s partially on your wife because she consented to live with the criminal you are, but it’s ultimately on you.) Steal a 50,000 dollar car and can’t pay for it? Go to jail until your family and/or friends pay the 200,000 dollar (plus the cost of incarcerating you) penalty. If you never get out of jail, that isn’t a Life Sentence; that’s your family not covering for your sorry butt.

For those who think the Death Penalty is not a reliable deterrent, answer me this: How many people who have served out their Death Penalty sentence have ever committed another crime? Beyond that, if the Death Penalty were more actively carried out, criminals would be that much more careful not to do that which could get them dead. I have read on more than one occasion that violent crimes drop off in the immediate aftermath of someone being executed for a violent crime.

For those who think it’s terrible to “punish the wife and kids” for a crime the man committed, consider the social ostracization of criminals that would result. And consider the resultant lowering of criminal activities that would result from the ostracization. Pariahs don’t survive well within a culture, thus few people want to become pariahs. And the result would necessarily be a drastic drop-off in crime over the long term.

There is no societal “lose” here. Short-term pain (innoculation) leads to long-term health, and a drastic reduction in crime. Tough Love, while declared “hateful” by Liberals and the “victims” of Tough Love, proves to be the exact opposite as people learn to be wholly responsible for their own actions. In short, they grow up and become mature adults, instead of “blame others always” “helpless” children.

One of my high school classmates, who is a die-hard Democrat, recently posted this cartoon from the Miami Herald on his Facebook page:

Well, reading the sign held up by the Jackass, I have to wonder: why, when the Democrats held large majorities in both Houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, didn’t they actually do any of that? The real reason, of course, is that it’s all a lie: those are the things the Democrats campaign on doing, but, once in office, they never actually try to do them. A shorter term for it would be populism.

Cut spending, the first item on the list? In FY2007, the last year that the Republicans controlled the Congress, total federal outlays were 19.7% of GDP, which was way too high, and produced a $160.7 billion deficit. Since the Democrats won control of the Congress, total federal outlays have shot up, to 20.8% of GDP in FY2008, when George Bush was still our President, to over 24% every single year since Barack Obama was inaugurated. President Obama’s proposed budget calls for total spending of 23.3% for FY2013 and in the mid 22% range for as far into the future as he can project, including years in which he projects steady economic growth and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be only memories.¹

Even the last item, the one the Democrats like so much, Raise Taxes for the Super Rich, the Democrats could have done, in 2009 and 2010, when they had solid majorities, but they didn’t even try! The 2001/2003 tax cuts were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, yet the Democrats who controlled the eleventy-first Congress never even brought a bill to retain those cuts for everyone below $250,000, and let them expire for above that income — one of Mr Obama’s 2008 campaign promises — until after the 2010 elections, after they had already lost. Warren Buffett, the billionaire who says that we should raise taxes on the rich, runs a corporation, Berkshire-Hathaway, which owes the IRS a billion dollars in back taxes, dating from 2002, because he’s nothing but a hypocrite.

Cut small business taxes? The President’s FY2013 budget proposal calls for increasing taxes on above $250,000 earners, but 2/3 of those filers are actually unincorporated small businesses! The Democrats say that they want to cut taxes for small businesses, but actually propose increases on taxes which impact small businesses, and then let companies like Berkshire-Hathaway, run by an Obama supporter, withhold their legally-owed taxes for years and years.

Cut corporate welfare and big business subsidies? Most people have heard of Solyndra, because it failed so badly after Obama Administration porkulus plan loan guarantees, but it turned out that there were 11 other solar-energy firms which did the same damned thing, all failing, because the Democrats weren’t ending corporate welfare or business subsidies, but simply moved the subsidies to companies which they favored.

The people for whom good, rank-and-file working class Democrats have been voting for all of these years have been lying to them, lying to them all along. They say the things their voters want to hear, and then once they have their votes in their pockets, don’t do any of the things their constituents voted for them to do.

This is the part that Republicans just don’t understand. The Democrats treat their supporters like absolute idiots, lying to them continually, and yet their supporters keep supporting them! Republicans lied to their supporters, too, about cutting spending, but that resulted in the abandonment of the Republicans in the 2006 elections, and the rise of the TEA Party faction in 2010, something the Republican leadership never anticipated, and some Republican officeholders discovered wasn’t to their liking in the 2010 primary elections.

Like this:

That is what many Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are saying. In fact, that’s what many non-Christians who are Conservative or Libertarian are saying. To what? To the Obama administration’s demand that all Health Insurance cover Birth Control, sterilization, and abortifacients. And, indeed, the compromise is most definitely worse than the original demand. And both are very clearly Unconstitutional. The First Street Journal has a couple articles regarding this turn of events, which are very worth the read. (Okay, that’s more than a couple (but qualifies when using Joe Biden’s numbering abilities), and the absolutely first link provides links to other articles on TSFJ in regard to this issue.)

A couple old nemeses from the now archive-only Common Sense Political Thought, one of which was given a 15-day suspension on TFSJ for multiple threats and intimidation, have entered the fray and have, in the process, proven they have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the US Constitution. Their lack of understanding in this case is in regard to the First Amendment, specifically the very first half of the First Amendment. (Those two would be Phoenician in a Time of Romans, a New Zealand Socialist and government-paid librarian who trolls Conservative blog-sites while being paid by New Zealand tax-payers, and Perry Hood, a septagenarian radical Leftist resident of Delaware. (And I put their names this far away from the links out of respect for the editor of TFSJ, since neither kook is using his known name or moniker there.)) My response to Perry Hood (Wagonwheel), who absolutely believes absolutely all absolutes are bad and absolutely no absolutes should be held by absolutely any who want to be absolutely better than absolutely any who hold absolutes (just so you understand his absolute rejection of absolutes — and, AOTC, this is an invite for you to post the appropriate Ravi Zacharias YouTube video) is as follows:

Wagonwheel says:
February 12, 2012 at 17:53 (Edit)

“WW, the point you are missing is the First Amendment where these organizations will be forced to break their religious freedoms.”

Right, Yorkshire, I should have specified private insurers not affiliated with Catholic institutions and/or enterprises. The compromise plan does not mandate that these Catholic institutions/enterprises need provide coverage of contraceptives.

This is where practically every Democrat, Liberal, Socialist (read “Progressive”) has absolutely no idea what the US Constitution says. Absolutely no understanding of what the US Constitution says.

The pertinent Amendment (in fact the very first of the Amendments deemed necessary before several of the 13 States would even consider ratifying the US Constitution) in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can find the link to the US Constitution online by following my name to my site and scanning my “Worthwhile Links” section.

I highlighted the pertinent part of the Amendment. Just so you on the fringe Left (WagonWheel) understand, I highlighted the very first part of the very first Amendment, which was necessary before various of the 13 States would even consider voting for it! That means it was absolutely, and extremely important to the regular people of the United States that that be very, extremely, clear.

And what does that highlighted part say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is nothing in that absolute restriction on Government (it is understood, through reading the US Constitution, that only Congress can make laws) that says the US Government can make a law restricting someone’s religious freedom, so long as that someone isn’t a recognized organization. If I, as a secular business owner and not a Church, deem abortifacients to be immoral and murderous (and, yes, a drug that causes the body to reject and eject a fertilized egg as part of its goal is a murderous drug) due to my religious belief, the “free exercise” clause of the FIRST AMENDMENT demands that the US Government cannot force me to violate my beliefs by paying for my employees to get that drug “free”. I don’t have to be a Catholic Church. I only have to have that as part of my religious beliefs. And, according to the US Constitution, the Government cannot restrict my exercising my belief in the sanctity of life, in any way, whatsoever.

And that’s what any “compromise” does. It violates the US Constitution. Period.

“When Good compromises with Evil, Evil wins.” Or, “Don’t you know that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf?” Yeah, look that up. It is most definitely a very important quote-from-memory, that is not even talking about bread or cooking but is, rather, a word-picture to a stiff-necked group of people who whined about absolutes.

The reason it’s so difficult for reasonable people to “compromise” with the Democrat leadership or Obama is because “when Good compromises with Evil, Evil wins” and the Democrat leadership and Barack Obama are very busily pushing items and agendas that are full of absolute Evil. You cannot, you dare not compromise with that.

Personal note, the book was published a week and a few days after I was born, FWIW. I read this in High School (mid 60′s) and saw it was alive and well in the Communist Countries. Then later on it seemed to creep into western Europe and kept moving westward to here. As far as the term “New Speak”, well call that POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. As far as eternal Wars, in one way or another it’s been all my life. When one hot spot was quelled, another showed up. If the wars didn’t include us, there were more than enough to fill in before we got activated again. During Viet-Nam, I was A+ on the Draft list. Escaped that by being in the reserves. Johnson assured us of fill-ins with the war on drugs. The Muddled East has provided non-stop action along with Africa.

The the king of all American wars since the book was written is the never ending war on terror. Now what do we have, street surveillence, traffic cams (double duty), Computerization of health records, an enemy’s list, practically strip searches at airports, this monstrosity of government healthcare to control us, recording of license plates to track our moves, about 100 federal police agencies, spying domestic and foreign, reading of emails and blogs. What’s next?

Nineteen Eighty-Four

(first published in 1949) by George Orwell is a dystopian novel about Oceania, a society ruled by the oligarchical dictatorship of the Party. Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control, accomplished with a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc), which is administrated by a privileged Inner Party elite.

Yet they too are subordinated to the totalitarian cult of personality of Big Brother, the deified Party leader who rules with a philosophy that decries individuality and reason as thoughtcrimes; thus the people of Oceania are subordinated to a supposed collective greater good. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record is congruent with the current party ideology. Because of the childhood trauma of the destruction of his family — the disappearances of his parents and sister — Winston Smith secretly hates the Party, and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother.

As literary political fiction and as dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot, and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, and memory hole, have become contemporary vernacular since its publication in 1949. Moreover, Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which refers to official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past in service to a totalitarian or manipulative political agenda.

I have seen multiple cases of Mitt Romney supporters acting very Alinskyite (read Democrat) in their attempts to demonize the strong opposition to Romney. It’s because Romney is a Mormon, they say, (examples can be found in Hot Air comment threads) completely ignoring Romney’s history and actual actions. Members of a Christian Church stand up and say if Romney is the candidate, they’ll stay home and not vote, and immediately the Romney supporters vilify the people, using straw-man ad hominem charges. They also use false dichotomy attacks, but that is tangential here.

Many people are shocked that so many evangelical Christians reject Mormonism as part of the Christian faith. I briefly touched on why Mormonism is decidedly not Christian in an earlier article. And while Mormonism is decidedly not Christian, that does not mean Christians will reject a Mormon for political office due to his or her faith. This site, which is decidedly Christian Conservative, has endorsed Mia Love, who I believe is a Mormon, for Congress due to her political positions. She’s prominent in the side-bar. I have a lot of respect for Glenn Beck, who is very up front with his Mormonism and his Libertarianism (which is not exactly Conservative), because he actually ferrets out the truth regarding the Democrat leadership’s strong ties to Socialists (such as billionaire convicted criminal and NAZI aiding George Soros) and the truth regarding the worldwide efforts to rebuild a Mohammedan caliphate.

When I was in high school, I house-sat for a Mormon family, and for very good reason: the father was a licensed gun dealer. I counted over 200 rifles and shotguns on one wall of their living room. And that was not the entirety of their gun collection. They had various pistols and fully automatic, high rounds-per-minute, large magazine weapons strewn about the house. It was important, even in the low-crime region of the low-crime town, for them to always have someone inside the house as a preventative measure. They were Mormons, and not Christian, although they thought themselves Christian. They were good people, nonetheless. (I expect they still are Mormons and good people, but I have not seen any of them in over 25 years.) The fact they were Mormon did not affect how I treated them. The daughter was my age and a very good friend of mine. Her Mormonism did not affect my decision-making in the least.

It is the same with Mitt Romney. The fact he is Mormon, while meaning he is decidedly not Christian, is not weighed in the balance when I look at him. In fact, modern-day mainstream Mormon beliefs would suggest a morality and value structure which is very much in line with Christian Conservative morality and value structures. It is, rather, Romney’s three positions for each issue and his record as Governor which disqualifies him.

Pushed Romneycare, the evil father of the evil Obamacare, both of which have the individual mandate, requiring the subjects (not citizens for a reason) purchase a product on pain of legal fines. To this day, Romney — in mock-worthy fashion — declares the individual mandate and Romneycare to be Conservative.

Pushed an anti-Catholic (who are we kidding? It’s anti-Christian!) mandate within Romneycare, the same that we have found out is in Obamacare, thanks to Sebelius.

Increased anti-Second Amendment actions by Massachusetts, in part by dramatically increasing fees and regulations on gun buyers and owners.

As Republican candidate for President over the past four to six years, Romney has also advocated a VAT tax on top of all the other taxes we are already paying. He (and more importantly his wrecking crew) has viciously and falsely attacked all his Republican adversaries in ways only Alinskyites would love, by use of intentional lies, intentional hiding of the truth, and other methods. Romney is anti-Second, anti-Christian, anti-Life, anti-Liberty, anti-Constitution, anti-Conservative.

Romney cloaks his actions in the Tenth Amendment, which you can read in its entirety in my side-bar or find by following my link to the US Constitution, also in my side-bar. Romney is no Tenther. In any way. Unlike Rick Perry, who is a Bell Curve Tenther (not a real Tenther), Romney is only borrowing the mantle for his own political expediency.

Mitt Romney seems to be experiencing a death-by-a-thousand cuts, many of them made possible by the copious video/documentary record of his 1994 challenge to Ted Kennedy. It’s Romney’s misfortune that outlets like C-SPAN are digitizing and making available to the public the footage from back then — because back then Romney was running to the left, not to the right. Today’s wince-inducing video clip (if you’re a Romney staffer, that is) is this NECN report from 2002 in which Romney brags, “I’m not a partisan Republican. I’m someone that is moderate, and my views are progressive”:

So, no, the Christian Conservative rejection of Romney has absolutely nothing to do with his Mormonism. In fact, much of what Romney pushed while Governor of Massachusetts was in direct violation of his Mormonism. The Christian Conservative rejection of Romney has everything to do with his anti-Constitutional anti-Christian Liberalism. The Christian Conservative position of the above-mentioned Church members who declared they’d stay home and not vote for Romney is partially supported here. I will not vote for a pro-abort, anti-second, anti-tenther “Progressive” such as Romney, ever. But I will vote down-ticket. What saved McCain in 2008, as far as I’m concerned is Palin. I voted for Palin and not for McCain. Romney will get no such saving grace. Period.

And it has nothing to do with his Mormon faith, which he has already rejected as Governor.

One of the most important activites the government can engage in when protecting the free market, is ensuring that it is in fact, and remains, free.

Unfortunately, then, some minimal regulation of the market-place and its participants must take place merely in order to ensure that it is an honest market, and that it reflects to some extent the same sense of right and wrong traditionally reflected in the law of torts.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was written to do just that. Unfortunately enforcement of it seems to wobble between over-zealous and partisan on the one hand, and deliberately lax on the other.

At other times, of course government policy seems to view the Sherman Act as an impediment to efficiency. As one participant wrote:

“The first Clinton administration acknowledged strains on the defense industrial base and put into place two policies to address this problem: acquisition reform (1) and an industry consolidation policy. Although much remains to be done, there has been considerable progress on acquisition reform. On the other hand, the success of the consolidation policy that attempted to balance the number of competing firms with efficiency has been more controversial.

In 1993, analysts assigned by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to conduct a “bottom-up review” of U.S. defense posture concluded that the defense industry needed to be restructured. Then Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Perry announced to industry leaders, at what has come to be referred to as the “Last Supper,” the Department of Defense (DoD) policy to encourage consolidation.

In July 1993, serving as the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, I introduced rules for sharing savings from consolidation between DoD and industry. The Defense Science Board formed a task force, composed of defense industry executives and government lawyers, to address the antitrust issues raised by the consolidation policy. In the five-year period of 1993-1998, many major defense firms merged or were acquired.

In 1998, DoD unexpectedly reversed the pro-consolidation policy and urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reject the proposed merger of Lockheed Martin and Northrop and the proposed General Dynamics acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding. The absence of a clear signal ending the consolidation policy is unfortunate because it left several defense firms stranded on a different course. In the spring of 2001, both General Dynamics and Northrop! Litton made offers for Newport News Shipbuilding, thus re-opening the industry consolidation question for the Bush administration.” Acquisition Review Quarterly / Fall, 2001 Consolidation of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base by John M. Deutch

This next case however, seems to be pretty clear cut. An instance it appears where the government is doing just what it should do in order to preserve the integrity of the economic system.

Yazaki Corp. and Denso Corp., two of Japan’s largest auto-parts suppliers, have agreed to plead guilty in a widening multicontinent bid-rigging case, the U.S. Department of Justice said today.
Yazaki and Denso will pay a combined total of $548 million in criminal fines as part of a plea agreement, the department said in a statement. Four of Yazaki’s Japanese executives also have agreed to plead guilty and serve prison time in the United States.

Denso was charged with conspiring to charge higher prices on heating-control panels and electronic control units. The Yazaki charges involved wire harnesses and related products.

Yazaki will pay a $470 million fine — the second-largest criminal fine ever for a Sherman Act antitrust violation, according to the Justice Department. Denso will pay $78 million.

The four Yazaki executives were identified as Tsuneaki Hanamura, Ryoji Kawai, Shigeru Ogawa and Hisamitsu Takada. They have agreed to serve prison time ranging from 15 months to two years.

The two-year sentences would be the longest term of imprisonment imposed on a foreign national voluntarily submitting to U.S. jurisdiction for a Sherman Act antitrust violation, the Justice Department said. The fine amounts and prison sentences are subject to court approval.

Yazaki ranks No. 13 on the Automotive News list of the 100 top global suppliers, with total estimated sales to automakers of $12.5 billion during its 2010 fiscal year. Denso ranks No. 2 on the list, with total estimated sales to automakers of $32.9 billion during its 2010 fiscal year.

In a statement, Denso said it cooperated in the investigation and will continue to do so. The company said its chairman (Koichi Fukaya), president, certain board members and executive directors will voluntarily return 10-30 percent of their compensation for a three-month period beginning in February. Eight executives are taking the pay cuts, a company spokeswoman said.

“It is Denso’s policy to comply with all applicable antitrust laws,” a company statement said.”

Fifty-first Congress of the United States of America, At the First Session,

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the second day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine.

An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be- forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.

Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without. respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

Sec. 8. That the word “person,” or ” persons,” wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.